Euro-spec BMW 335d rated at 35 mpg (US) combined
This week, BMW unveiled the refreshed 2009 3-series, but unfortunately, we only have specs for the European models so far. Nonetheless, those details give some hints about we can expect from the diesel-powered 335d that arrives at U.S. dealers this fall. The one detail we already knew was that the diesel 6-cylinder would only be paired up with a 6-speed automatic and that the U.S. power output would be 265 hp and 425 lb-ft of torque. Our European friends get 286 PS (around 282 hp) and 428 lb-ft. The Euro edition 335d sedan is rated at a combined 35.1 mpg (US) while still accelerating from 0-62 in 6.0 seconds. The current European version has a particulate filter, but the urea injection system is not yet included. With the slightly lower power of the U.S. version, the acceleration will probably drop off by a couple of tenths of a second, and the EPA test procedures will likely yield a combined fuel economy number of about 30 mpg. By comparison, the gas-powered 335i only has 295 lb-ft of torque but a slightly higher 306 hp while only being rated at 25.8 mpg (US) combined. The 335d is no Prius but for a strong-performing sport sedan it certainly has very impressive mileage.
Now, if only BMW would just see fit to offer American drivers the four-cylinder 320d. The 177 hp its 2.0L four produces lets the 320d run from 0 to 62 mph in a more-than-adequate 7.9 seconds while returning a combined 49 mpg when you translate its EU-standard 4.8 liters/100 km composite fuel economy rating to U.S. miles per gallon. Now we're talking!
[Source: BMW]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Michael 1:07PM (7/13/2008)
Yeah, but nobody likes diesel. Diesel's too expensive. Cost of diesel doesn't make up for the improved mileage. BLAH BLAH BLAH
I look forward to it.
Reply
empowah 3:40PM (7/15/2008)
I look forward to it, too.
BMW has already announced official EPA figures for the 335d. It will be 23/33 mpg, which is ~30% better than the 335i's 17/26 mpg.
why not the LS2LS7? 2:28PM (7/13/2008)
I too think they should bring the 320d here. But note that the EU ratings are way, way off, even when translated to US gallons. You're looking really at something below 40 mpg in the US as a combined figure for the 320d. Which is still very good for a combined figure.
Reply
David 8:18AM (7/14/2008)
Why are the EU ratings way, way off? It directly translates to 49.2 mpg... are you saying the drive cycle to generate the mpg number is the big difference?
nagmashot 12:14PM (7/14/2008)
the EU ratings are so much way of that amateur driver had no problem to easy beat them in a Autobild testdrive from Vienna to Basel and back covering 1600km or 1000miles with a Audi A4 TDI, according to the Audi A4 EU consuption rating all cars should run out of fuel at 1250km latest.. all 22teams had no problems to drive the 1600km on the single tank of diesel fuel reaching 64-70mpg(US) in real world traffic...they covered the 1000miles in a 22hour drive.. no they were not crawling through the alpen mountains..
Even in the US car magazine had no problem to realy show what is possible with old Jetta TDI no matter how bad they were rated by that EPA nonsens.. they easy toped 40mpg average in real world trafic.
MikeW 6:25PM (7/13/2008)
323d!
Love the serial-sequential turbos!
Reply
RobE 9:55AM (7/14/2008)
I say bring us a smaller diesel. The price will be a premium over the 335i while getting just 5mpg better on average. I do know from a couple of 335i owners that they average more in the 21mpg area, so if the diesel can deliver better than 35+ (there are those of us who don't have to race from one light to the next), then there might be some value. For now, I'll hold out to see if they bring the 325d or 330d. I'd love a 320d, but Americans will never get it...literally and figuratively.
Reply
Cary 12:45AM (7/15/2008)
Damn, one thing at a time. We're fcking lucky to get this. Don't piss them off. Next year you'll get a Mercedes C220 bluetec, possibly the hybrid one. Then you can bask in the glory of your 40+ MPG combined and overkill comfort. I'm getting one, providing my hopes and predictions come true.
Chad 10:00AM (7/14/2008)
@david
Yes, it our testing methods are vastly different. Here's an example
2009 Volkswagen Jetta 2.0 TDI 6 speed manual: U.S. combined 34 mpg, Euro combined 50.4 mpg
The writers at autobloggreen REALLY need to stop quoting mpg from direct number conversion. It is misleading
Reply
brn 11:31AM (7/14/2008)
"The writers at autobloggreen REALLY need to stop quoting mpg from direct number conversion. It is misleading"
How do I mark this comment up about a thousand points?
It's yet another indicator that many publications care more about the headline than they do about the distribution of useful information.
Reply
Richard 11:31AM (7/14/2008)
Yeah, except that everyone including the EPA has acknowledged that their current test drastically underrates diesel engines in the real world. Many Jetta owners are seeing 45-50 mpg in the real world - and not the hypermilers, either.
Reply
brn 12:01PM (7/14/2008)
Richard, do you have a source for the EPA acknowledgment?
I don't doubt you, but I'd like to see what they say.
Reply
CMiller 1:07PM (7/14/2008)
This is a step in the right direction. I agree though, we don't need the big engine, but hopefully this will lead the way for smaller diesels. I would love to see the 120d, 123d, or the 3 series variants. The 300 ft/lbs of torque coming that 2.3 is more than plenty.
Reply
wxman 2:58PM (7/14/2008)
brn - I think Richard got his information from EPA's "Final Technical Support Document
Fuel Economy Labeling of Motor Vehicles:
Revisions to Improve Calculation of Fuel Economy Estimates", http://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/420r06017.pdf page 8 [16 of 179].
Also note in Table III.A-28 on page 90 [98 of 179] that a correction factor is applied to ALL vehicles, including diesels, for "fuel quality" which is a correction for ethanol in gasoline (see page 82 [90 of 179]).
Reply
brn 7:19PM (7/14/2008)
wxman,
Thanks! That's certainly a big read. I couldn't read the whole thing, but I did read the pages you referenced.
Page 8 [16] talks about user reported numbers on the web site. It has a larger variance of diesel, but hardly anything I'd call significant enough to discredit the EPA's numbers.
Otherwise, it talks about possible factors that can affect mpg. I admit that I haven't read the entire document, but I don't see them acknowledging an underestimation. Richard, if we're running down the wrong path, please let us know.